PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10081308

[Halitosis: a multidisciplinary problem].

C M Bollen·E H Rompen·J P Demanez
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Bad breath, or halitosis, affects between 50 and 65% of the population. Despite its frequency, this problem is often unaccepted and declared taboo. In about 8% of the cases, bad breath is related to an ENT pathology (sinusitis, tonsillitis, ...). More rarely it is caused by a metabolic (diabetes, trimethylaminuremia, ...) or gastric dysfunction. Ninety percent of the cases however, are associated to an oral disease: either gingivitis due to an inadequate removal of dental plaque, especially from interdental spaces, or periodontitis (alveolar bone destruction), or bacterial accumulation on the dorsum of the tongue. In most cases, an intensive disinfection of the mouth by scaling and root planing and/or instruction of a perfect oral hygiene will be sufficient to solve the problem. Perfumed mouthwashes or toothpastes will only give a short-term masking effect. An effective collaboration between a dentist or a periodontist and an ENT specialist is of great importance to dealt with bad breath.

Explore related subjects

Circadian RhythmDentistryHalitosisHumansOral HygieneOtolaryngologyPatient Care TeamPeriodonticsRisk FactorsEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C M Bollen, E H Rompen, J P Demanez. 1999. [Halitosis: a multidisciplinary problem].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10081308/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

A long-term randomized, cross-over comparison of auto-titrating and standard nasal continuous airway pressure.

This study is a 12-week randomized, cross-over, single-blind comparison of the tolerance, compliance, and symptomatic improvement obtained with standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. an auto-titrating, self-adjusting device (APAP). Sixty newly diagnosed patients, 53 with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and seven with upper airway resistance syndrome were studied. Thirty-nine patients (65%) completed the 24-week protocol. Data were complete in 33. In these 33 patients CPAP and APAP reduced the Epworth Sleepiness score from 15+/-1 (+/-SEM) to 8+/-1 and 9+/-1 respectively (both <0.0001 from baseline but NS between modes). The APAP average pressure was lower than the CPAP pressure, 6.4+/-0.4 and 10.6+/-0.4 cm H20, respectively. The average daily machine use was greater with APAP, 6.0+/-0.3 hrs. versus 5.5+/-0.3 hrs. with CPAP (P < 0.04). The number of days of machine use, and the pattern of use were not different between CPAP and APAP. A higher proportion of patients who did not complete the study was randomized to CPAP for their initial treatment period. This study showed that: 1) CPAP and APAP produced an equivalent improvement in daytime sleepiness, 2) APAP pressure was lower than CPAP pressure, 3) patients wore the APAP device longer during nights they used the pressure support system, and 4) patients who began the study with APAP were more prone to continue treatment. We conclude that APAP was better tolerated and used a greater number of hours than CPAP, but the extent of improvement in excessive daytime sleepiness was similar between the two modes of therapy.

Circadian Rhythm↗
PubMed2000

Sleep and health: research and clinical perspectives.

Overall, the Workshop covered most of the principal areas which will be the focus of the Worldwide Project on Sleep and Health. Presentations ranged from the basic science of melatonin receptors to the epidemiology of untreated insomnia, and finally, to the education of primary care physicians. It was emphasized that there is a need for more data, and new experimental paradigms are necessary for successful public health initiatives dealing with sleep disorders.

Circadian Rhythm↗
PubMed2000

Differential effects of permanent and rotating shifts on self-report sleep length: a meta-analytic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The current study used the meta-analytic technique to quantitatively assess the effects of permanent and rotating shift-work schedules on sleep length. DESIGN: A meta-analysis was completed on 36 primary studies resulting in 165 effect sizes. Effect sizes comparing shift-workers to a permanent day shift control group were calculated for permanent evening shifts, permanent night shifts, and morning, evening, and night shifts worked as part of slowly and rapidly rotating shift systems. SETTING: NA PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: NA INTERVENTIONS: NA RESULTS: Permanent night shifts resulted in a decrease, whereas permanent evening shifts resulted in an increase in sleep length. The shifts within rotating schedules followed the same pattern, with the addition of morning shifts having a moderate detrimental effect on sleep length. Furthermore, the speed of shift rotation had an impact. Slowly rotating shifts, in general, had the least detrimental effect on sleep length of the permanent and rotating shift-work schedules studied here. The pattern of effects among morning, evening, and night shifts was the same for rapidly and slowly rotating shifts, with night shifts having the greatest detrimental effect, morning shifts having a moderate detrimental effect and evening shifts having a positive effect on sleep length. In addition, nights on rotating shifts had a greater negative effect on sleep length than permanent night shifts. CONCLUSIONS: Slowly rotating shifts have the least negative impact on sleep length of shift-work schedules including a night shift. However, permanent night shifts could be an alternative shift-work schedule in operational settings that require many workers at night.

Circadian Rhythm↗